Subject: RE: [VRRP] Some comments on draft-ietf-vrrp-ipv6-spec-08.txt

From: "John Cruz \(johcruz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:59:24 -0700

Hi Steve

This regarding issue 3 that you have described below:

Since the virtual mac itself is derived from the virtual router id,
the scheme that you are suggesting boils down to using the virtual
router id to generate the virutal ip address.

The spec deals in terms of backup routers backing up the master's
addresses (basically, addresses assigned to the master's interface).
In typical deployments though, the virtual addresses are not addresses
assigned to any routers'links. No one really owns the virtual addresses.
>From that perspective, what you say makes sense. But that is purely an
implementation detail. It is even possible to make user config simpler
by asking the user to provide only the virtual router id, and then
generate rest of the config. Since this is all part of the
implementation, do we need this as part of the VRRP specification?

Thanks
John

> 
> Issue 3: 
> It's clear that each VRRP group needs a link-local address.  If there
> are several VRRP routers, it is cumbersome for the operator 
> to configure
> the same VRRP protected LL address on all of them.  Why not have a
> mechanism to derive a "VRRP link local address", perhaps 
> using the VRRP
> MAC?  

_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp